Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

288 Cameron RossElections of chairs of councils and heads of municipalitiesThe 2003 Law continues the practice (first established in the 1995 Law) ofallowing heads of municipalities (in municipal districts and city okrugs) to beindirectly elected from members of their local assemblies, or directly electedby their citizens. It also calls for a separation of executive and legislativepowers. No longer will the chair of a council be allowed to hold the additionalpost of head of municipality. This means in effect that there are will betwo heads of municipalities: the chair of the council (who may be indirectlyor directly elected) and an ‘executive manager’, to be hired by a specialselection committee. According to the original provisions of the 2003 Law,one third of the members of the panels charged with appointing the newexecutive managers were to be chosen by regional administrations (Article37.5) and the others by the local councils. However, in an amendmentadopted in April 2005, the percentage of representatives from regionaladministrations was raised to 50 per cent, thereby significantly enhancingregional control over the appointment process. This new dual system has thepotential to generate conflict between heads of the local councils andappointed managers, especially in cities where the latter are nominees ofregional governors.There have been numerous complaints by local politicians and officials ofpressure being put on them to adopt the indirect method of electing theircouncil heads. According to the Ministry of Regional Development, by July2005, thirty-six of Russia’s federal subjects (e.g. Vladimir, Voronezh, Tver',Ul'yanovsk, Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk) had changed to this system.However, in numerous municipalities (e.g. in Kaluga, Kostroma, Perm,Vladimir and Leningrad oblasts) citizens have appealed to the local courts tohave direct elections reinstated. Thus, for example, in January 2005 deputiesof the City Assembly of Obninsk (Kaluga Region) adopted a decision tocancel the direct election of the city mayor. This was despite the fact that adecision on the introduction of direct elections had already been decided bya local referendum in 1995. The City Court on 8 February 2005 declaredthat the cancellation of direct elections was illegal; however, the KalugaRegional Court on 14 March revoked the decision of the City Court. 15 It isclear that the indirect method is preferred because it is much more open tomanipulation and control from the regional authorities than popular elections.It is much easier for regional executives to gain control over localcouncils than to control local electorates.Type of electoral systemRegions are free to determine their own electoral system for municipalcouncil elections. However, in 2005 the Central Electoral Commission produceda Draft Model Law which proposed that in the future all municipalelections should adopt a mixed electoral system with a high level of